Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
  1. c. July–December 2004
  2. c. December 2004 – May 2005
  3. c. May–September 2005
  4. c. October–December 2005
  5. January – 4 April 2006
  6. April–June 2006
  7. June–August 2006
  8. August 2006 – January 2007
  9. 2007
  10. 2008
  11. 2009
  12. 2010
  13. 2011
  14. 2012
  15. 2013
  16. 2014

New or possible categories[edit]

Do we have to create a category first to discuss it or is it also okay to discuss an idea for a new category here prior to creating it? Or should that be done somewhere else? Can't figure out where. (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends. If it's a pretty specific category, then a Wikiproject dealing with the subject would be a good place to propose it. If you're thinking of a system of categories, then a category-related guideline talk page might be better. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several guideline talk pages, not all are well-watched. I won't list them all, but they include: Wikipedia talk:Categorization (with 593 watchers); Help talk:Category (186 watchers); and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories (182). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a point that is currently completely absent from the main project page. Categories "for discussion" apparently does not actually mean "discussion about categories", but — per already the opening sentence, "categories for deletion, merger or renaming".
I suppose the nomenclature is stuck by this point; but we really should have some notes on the project page itself on where to go if you in fact are only looking for discussion. --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Umbrella nomination for renaming – Tag first or create the CFD subsection first?[edit]

I am nominating 75 categories for renaming ("Open air museums in XXX" to "Open-air museums in XXX").

The rather confusing instructions say to tag each category first, including the Cfd section name, and then "Create the CFD subsection". Until I create the CFD subsection, I don't know what its name is, right? So how can I first tag the category correctly? It would be nice to have an example of what the tag should look like for an umbrella nomination. Should the tag look like this?

"{{subst:cfr|Open-air museums in Arizona|Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 12 (section)}}"

Is "Cfd section" the same as "CFD subsection"? If so, why don't we use consistent terminology throughout the instructions? I have AWB set up to quickly tag all 75 categories, but I want to get it right on the first try. Chris the speller yack 04:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for raising this. I have changed "subsection" to "section". You can decide the name of the Cfd section in advance. The tag should look like this:
"{{subst:cfr|Open-air museums in Arizona|Cfd section}}"
However, for these categories you can use the Speedy page WP:CFDS, which is simpler as well as quicker. As you hope for no discussion there, no section name is needed. Tag them like this:
"{{subst:cfr-speedy|Open-air museums in Arizona}}"
Fayenatic London 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That makes a lot more sense. Chris the speller yack 05:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
When you come to list them on the Speedy page, justify the first one as C2A and C2C, with a link to the hyphenated parent. Then add an extra * to indent the remainder, and omit the rationale and signature for those. – Fayenatic London 05:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. Chris the speller yack 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Assistance in tagging requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_21#US_military_bases_and_facilities_to_installations[edit]

A 2010 CfM directed that 'Military bases' and 'Military facilities' be merged as 'Military installations'. The link you'll see at the CfM above however did not list all of the hundreds of categories in the 'bases' and 'facilities' categories individually. I'm now trying to list all those cats so that the request can be put through and the whole category standardized. I'd like to request some tagging help at the first subcategory I'm working on, Category:Military installations of the United States by country. Any questions feel free to ask here or at my talkpage. Any and all assistance much welcomed (including with barnstars!!). Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Special Collections[edit]

What exactly is the defining characteristic of this category? Its page says: "Special Collections embraces a wide range of institutions, including rare book libraries, archives, and other cultural heritage institutions." That seems extremely vague to me. BMK (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Special collections makes it sound like a real thing, maybe even a distinct thing, but it's being applied not simply to articles about special collections, but rather institutions that happen to have special collections. Never mind whether their articles even mention that fact. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting mass moves by sock accounts[edit]

Prolific sockmaster Tobias Conradi has mass renamed categories in addition to a load of articles and templates. Could you please take a look at this discussion and see if the bots could be used to move the categories back? A couple of examples of categories at their new titles include: Category:Protests by administrative territorial entity which was moved from the concise Category:Protests by territory and Category:Former administrative territorial entities by continent moved from Category:Former territorial entities by continent. If the new names are deemed to be right, at least let someone in good standing make that judgment! —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: what do you think? The edits in question can be seen here and the resulting hierarchy, moved without consensus, is currently at Category:Administrative territorial entities. I looked at this account's more recent minor changes to categorisation and IMHO they appeared to be constructive, so I would be inclined to ignore G5 in those cases, but this "Administrative territorial" set of categories does not match the naming of the articles within them. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There's also this account in addition to Eldizzino mentioned above. This is the relevant SPI, and has some background info. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)